Nikon seems to be in the mood for a lot of talking, not a lot of product announcement s (yes the D3s, but not everyone has +$5000 to buy the best camera out there). I’m happy to see they are starting to think about video and higher MP. Again I state that most clients see MP and HD video as reasons to higher one photog over another. Yes the most discerning clients know better, but typical clients do not (nor are they willing to pay for “pro” equipment use, a trend I frightfully seeming emerge).

So sounding like a broken record, stop talking Nikon and deliver on a camera already. D700v or D800/D900, deliver on the goods you promise us.

John

I’m still waiting to see whether Nikon will come out with a 16MP-18MP FF D900 before Canon get a decent autofocus into a 5DMkIII.

I’ve got my pennies saved.

Acend

+1

Anonymous

+2

Geoff

agreed if it were 18MP … i am not jumping for only a 4Mp bump. not when i know they have a 24MP camera out already that will possibly be beaten (in MP) by a 32MP camera.

Do not try to short change me, 18MP is my line in the sand. ;- )

Simon

Nikon now realise that less noise at high ISO with small files does nothing for IQ. and that Canon has a better balance with smaller RAW options and selling more cameras.

bob

the next step after this should be to work on some better pricing

Niko

NIKON VICTOR !!

http://www.www.com Landscape Photo

For whom saying D700 is superior to D300, if you compare two cameras with identical setting @ ISO 200, İt’s impossible to tell any difference in any aspect. They yield identical images !

D700 does not justify the price & hassle upgrading for landscapes. Yet it may be perfect for other genres of photography. They are roughly same cameras except for having physically different-sized sensor versions of same resolution. Camera type, menus, color reproduction, almost everything is the same. The only visible difference is high-ISO noise & DoF.

Sometimes people dare to compare it to 5D II. Forget comparing 5D II with D700, even the 5D I gives better results (at low ISO). Please do your own comparison before any conclusion.

There is a reason why D700 is not worth the switch (from D300 & for landscapes), and there is a solid reason why Nikon needs to produce a700x or D900.

http://fotografstuttgart.de Hochzeitsfotograf

this is nonsense. D300 files are blind-test recognizable from D700. I am not sure if you only follow some tests on web or have both, i did tried both. While D300 is not bad at base ISO, it makes ugly shadows in compare to D700. Any PP you do to photos will make it only worse. D700 is smooth, MX-like smooth. All color transitions are graduated, not posterized.

AnonyMauss

citation needed

Photosage

I did the comparison, at less than 800ISO very hard to tell the difference on the images. But there’s more to compare: D700 allows less depth of field to isolate the subject. That’s one reason you buy an f1.4 lens. Also on a large frame, dIffraction gets noticeable at f16 rather than f8, thus giving you more aperture options. My little wide angle lenses are wide angle again because there’s no crop factor. The view through the viewfinder on an FX body is larger than that of a DX, less like looking through a peephole. And of course the clean high ISO bested only by the D3S now.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/philograf/ Philipp Hilpert

“Nikon will provide a better balance between resolution and high ISO image quality than in the recently launched D3S”

do they also provide cameras? IN NEAR!!! (1 month) Future?

Anonymous

There is no point making 12, 15, 18, megapixel cameras. Since the D700 (mine) gives exactly the same result noise wise at high ISO compared to the D3X.
Provided that the images are viewed AT THE SIME FINAL SIZE!

The D3x is only noisier at high ISO because when you look at the image at 100 percent on screen you are looking at double the image are. Resize it down to the same size as the d700 or d3 and the noise is the same as far as I can see.

Noise is a function of the total light landing on the sensor area, not the number of pixels. At 1600 or 6400 I see no difference in identically sized prints. Just more detail in lower ISO prints due to more resolution.

So this noise v resolution argument is rediculous. Roll on d700x with 24 megapixels… It allows more room for cropping, rotating, distortion removal, etc before resizing/final sharpening with NO downsides.

http://www.www.com Landscape Photo

+1

Inst

It, after all, depends on market segment. On the machine I’m currently using, just using lightroom with 15 MP canon files is causing the machine to lag and show ram abnormalities. It’s slow and generally not a pleasant experience.

If you can afford an expensive computer, which D3s/1D4 owners should be able to, you can easily crop 24-32 MP files without breaking a sweat. On the other hand, if your budget only allows a D90 or 550D, a smaller file-size is a plus.

What Canon really needs is to make high ISO low megapixel cameras for the under $1000 mark. What Nikon really needs is to make mid ISO high megapixel cameras for the $3000-5000 mark.

Aside from that, smaller pixels also influence dynamic range and incraese your diffraction-limited aperture. See the soft 7D pictures at small apertures.

Joe

Just make two camera, with the same body, one with the Sensor from D3s and another one with a higher MP.

I want the performance from the D3s in a smaller package, and while people can who want higher MP with lower ISO performance can get their high MP camera.

Anonymous

You dont GET a “lower ISO performance” at the same output image size! So you may as well have 24 million pixels…

24mp will only give you a 40% size advantage over 12mp, is 16-18mp even worth it?
+ why is everyone so OBSESSED with FHD?

Gorgonzola

You know what…

I think I dont care about resolution Megapixel garbage…. I have a D300, and I want my D700 class camera to have just better and better ISO possibly movie capabilty its nice problem with that is…hmmmm the D3 will be endagered…..

So I see no way as how they will introduce the new (D7007s/x/QRZYR/D800/D900) that will be superior to the D3 series thing is it needs to be…cause then its not REALLY a REAL update now is it….

its like its overkill over the higher spec cameras or no update at all so it will probably be a higher pixel count maybe like a 18 mp and a movie capability and thats about it….

I really want reading the above comments ( I agree) if we ARE going the MP route give me 24 or above and super duper ISO sensitivity and ULTRA LOW NOISE….I could not care personally about the pixels I just want the shot… canon this canon that get the HASSELBLAD and get it over with already….

Gorgonzola

You know what…
I think I dont care about resolution Megapixel garbage…. I have a D300, and I want my D700 class camera to have just better and better ISO possibly movie capabilty its nice problem with that is…hmmmm the D3 will be endagered…..
So I see no way as how they will introduce the new (D7007s/x/QRZYR/D800/D900) that will be superior to the D3 series thing is it needs to be…cause then its not REALLY a REAL update now is it….
its like its overkill over the higher spec cameras or no update at all so it will probably be a higher pixel count maybe like a 18 mp and a movie capability and thats about it….
I really want reading the above comments ( I agree) if we ARE going the MP route give me 24 or above and super duper ISO sensitivity and ULTRA LOW NOISE….I could not care personally about the pixels I just want the shot… canon this canon that get the HASSELBLAD and get it over with already….

http://www.dazedproductions.co.uk Jim Stewart

Not sure I like the sound of that, I am waiting for the D4 and I want even better ISO than the D3s. 2 stops on my D3 and I will be waiting in line!

Robert

Are we done with this now? Predictions, predictions, predictions.
I guess it makes some people feel better.
As for me, I rather wait for Nikon, let them take their time it if it means superiority and quality. I just hope the price is right and not overkill.
This thread should be close now – until next rumor.

this marketing speak does point to onething : a new D800/D900 that would be 18-20MP with D3/D700’s noise level. 720p video looks more likely than 1080p at this point. I am betting on a july release.

for some reason I tend to believe this camera would retails for the same US$2999 price. the same as D700. D700 retailing at US$2999 at the beginning was indeed at the low end of most people’s expectations.

Meh

No way….it will have worse noise level than D700 for sure.

Anonymous

-1

Tim

all i want to know, is the release date of the d700s :p

http://www.dafyddowen.com Daf

Sounds good to me.
My perfect option would be between D3s and D3x but in the smaller body.
Don’t think I’d ever need another cam again!

Woody

I’ve been in the market for my first DSLR for about three months. Here’s my unbiased perspective.

1. Lots of rumors from Nikon, not much action
2. Originally had my eye on the D90, then the D300s…but would have likely gone with the D90 and baught a nice piece of glass
3. The Canon T2i (550) is now tops on my list, so I have a few months to wait on the Nikon “rumors” until the T2i comes out.
4. I feel that Nikon glass is superior, but for a beginner, likely not a deal breaker to go with a Canon….especially given the options and price of canon lenses.
5. I would really love a D90 upgrade with 15-18mp, full hd and the other new “stuff” like external microphone jack, etc… That being said, I won’t pay over $1500 for it with the T2i at $900.

I hope Nikon makes a move before the T2i becomes available

http://matthewsaville.com/blog Matthew Saville

I definitely think we should stick with two completely different sensors as well. I LOVE how Nikon has two flagship bodies, both full-frame, with one at 12 megapixels (even less than the 1D mk4, and providing better high ISO performance) …and one with 24 megapixels (even more than the 1Ds mk3, and again providing better high ISO performance)

I think they could easily make a 14-16 megapixel D4 that performs as well as the D3, (though not as good as the D3s maybe) …and then a D4X that hits ~30 megapixels and performs equal to the D3X in low light.

That would be the best path, IMO… Keep it separate, don’t try and merge the two. Canon’s addiction to megapixels is always their downfall; now that Nikon has adopted FX and a new AF system, I bet they can stay on top of the low-light performance game for another generation or two without hardly trying…

=Matt=

=Matt=

Anonymous

people STILL dont get that megapixels dont effect image noise at the SAME image size. Ie d3x is NOT noisier at high ISO when compared at the same output size.

It only seems that way since you look at it at double the photo area at 100 percent. Print a few high ISO images from D3 and D3X at large sizes and look at the results. The noise is THE SAME!

But detail is improved at least with the “trio” of new nano zooms it is.

http://cameraimprov.com kyoshinikon

The Iso issue isn’t between the D3 and the D3x it’s more between the D3 and the D3s and how the D4 will hopefully be a huge improvement over it. I cannot shoot over ISO 500 on my D80 because the grain is too obvious and crappy whereas on my D90 I shoot comfortably at ISO 1600 let’s see the same thing on the top of the line…

marten

They could put the “old” D700 sensor in a D90-like body.
That would sell like crazy and they would have nice refresh whit a reasonable R&D budget

Jabs

Hey Administrator,
How are you?
Here is a real good interview for inclusion here, perhaps.